The general rule is that if a party does not object to jurisdiction in his or her first pleading, then objections to jurisdiction are waived. But how about a divorce based on publication? In Velasco v. Ayala, No. 01-07-01053-CV (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 19, 2009), the trial court appointed an attorney ad litem to represent the absent spouse. The attorney ad litem did not object to jurisdiction; if this case had not been subject to the Hague Service Convention, then the divorce could not have been set aside for lack of jurisdiction.

Courtesy of Verner & Brumley, P.C. Dallas, Texas

Tags: jurisdiction, Hague Convention, default

The Amarillo Court of Appeals upheld a domicile restriction to Tarrant County even though the father was convicted of physically abusing the mother. In re: A.S., 298 S.W.3d 834 (Tex. App. - Amarillo 2009). But what a difference the jurisdiction can make. At what point does a court become a "family czar with unlimited authority to order the parents to do anything that the court believes is in the best interests of the child?” See Allbright v. Allbright, 215 P.3d 472 (Ida. 2009).

Courtesy of Verner & Brumley, P.C. Dallas, Texas

Tags: domicile restriction, family violence

The El Paso Court of Appeals reminds us that Tex. R. Evid. 1004 is an "or" rule: Parol evidence is not admissible unless it falls within one of Rule 1004's exceptions. At trial, husband objected based on (e) (the prenuptial agreement certainly did relate to a controlling issue) but he did not object based on (a) (all originals lost or destroyed). Because "the complaint on appeal must match the complaint raised in the trial court," husband lost this issue on appeal. Jurek v. Couch-Jurek, 296 S.W.3d 864 (Tex. App. - El Paso 2009).

Courtesy of Verner & Brumley, P.C. Dallas, Texas

Tags: parol evidence